Electrophile 3,554 Report post Posted September 5, 2009 No offense, but who cares if the design isn't complex? I took Advertising, in fact that was my major and to be honest, sometimes the more simple a logo/design is, the more effective it is. Take McDonalds for example. Everyone knows the Golden Arches. I don't know anyone on the planet Earth who doesn't see that and immediately know Mickey D's. The genius of its longevity and marketability is the fact it's so bloody simple. It's a damn set of arches that look like an M. Wow. Groundbreaking s***. KISS is not just a rock band, you know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cern 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2009 (edited) No offense, but who cares if the design isn't complex? I took Advertising, in fact that was my major and to be honest, sometimes the more simple a logo/design is, the more effective it is. Take McDonalds for example. Everyone knows the Golden Arches. I don't know anyone on the planet Earth who doesn't see that and immediately know Mickey D's. The genius of its longevity and marketability is the fact it's so bloody simple. It's a damn set of arches that look like an M. Wow. Groundbreaking s***. KISS is not just a rock band, you know. I agree that an effective design dosen't have to be complicated, but the stick-rink logo's simplicity dosen't automatically make it good. There's a difference between 'simple' and 'no substance'. The logo dosen't say anything about Vancouver. It dosen't say anything about the team. f***, it barely says anything about hockey beyond equipment that happens to be used to play it. There's zero identity expressed in it; it could fit a bantam team up in Iqaluit just as well as it could fit a professional team in GM Place. When you compare that to the better team logos in the league, that counts a lot against it. To me it's just soulless and cheap-looking - in spite of its simplicity, not because of it. Edited September 5, 2009 by Cern Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Electrophile 3,554 Report post Posted September 5, 2009 I wasn't necessarily defending the merits of the design itself, just the fact that simplicity alone doesn't make a logo/design bad. The Wings' logo is pretty simple, but says a lot about the city of Detroit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 There is a difference between liking different logos and thinking a rounded square with a stick in it is an acceptable logo. Yeah....and that difference is called personal taste. Quit pretending like your POV is the only one that matters....it's not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holiday 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 Yeah....and that difference is called personal taste. Quit pretending like your POV is the only one that matters....it's not. Cern expressed my opinion of the logo quite nicely. Sometimes personal opinion can't be used to hide the fact that a logo is ******* horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 Cern expressed my opinion of the logo quite nicely. Sometimes personal opinion can't be used to hide the fact that a logo is ******* horrible. Bulls***. But clearly you don't care about other people's personal preference so whats the point of debating with you. I think the logo is classic and sharp. I don't care if has nothing to do with the team name. That's not the point, but you sure seem hell bent on making it the point when I never was. Get over it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 Rink-and-stick logo really sucks. Just sayin'. I think the flying skate was actually the best thing the Canucks ever had going for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holiday 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 Bulls***. But clearly you don't care about other people's personal preference so whats the point of debating with you. I think the logo is classic and sharp. I don't care if has nothing to do with the team name. That's not the point, but you sure seem hell bent on making it the point when I never was. Get over it. Classic doesn't make it good. Classic never makes anything good. And sure, it is sharp, but it isn't a good logo. It would be like using a Skate as a logo for the Canadiens in 1917 and saying that is a classic sharp logo. Okay, but why is it good? Because it was an original logo? A good logo is a logo that is pleasing to the eye and represents the team or the tema name. The Stick in Rink MAY be pleasing to the eye, but it isn't Canuck. It is hockey. Lets go Vancouver hockey team! Honestly, you could even argue that the rink is a swimming pool and the stick is a broken diving board. I apologize for my abrasiveness, but that is possibly the one logo where I cannot believe people actually think it is decent. And no one has ever given me a reason why, except that it is simple and classic. Neither of those are reasonable reasons, because a square is simple, and if it was used in the early 1900s then it would be classic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 Classic doesn't make it good. Classic never makes anything good. And sure, it is sharp, but it isn't a good logo. It would be like using a Skate as a logo for the Canadiens in 1917 and saying that is a classic sharp logo. Okay, but why is it good? Because it was an original logo? A good logo is a logo that is pleasing to the eye and represents the team or the tema name. The Stick in Rink MAY be pleasing to the eye, but it isn't Canuck. It is hockey. Lets go Vancouver hockey team! Honestly, you could even argue that the rink is a swimming pool and the stick is a broken diving board. I apologize for my abrasiveness, but that is possibly the one logo where I cannot believe people actually think it is decent. And no one has ever given me a reason why, except that it is simple and classic. Neither of those are reasonable reasons, because a square is simple, and if it was used in the early 1900s then it would be classic. Not sure if this was brought up before or not, so disregard if it has. Taken from Wikipedia, so take this for what it's worth... The "Stick-in-Rink", 1970-78; alternate logo, 2003-2007. The team's first NHL jerseys, worn from the inaugural season of 1970-71 (modified for the 1972-73 season) until the end of the 1977-78 season, featured a blue rink-shaped rectangle with a hockey stick in it forming the letter "C", designed by North Vancouver artist, Joe Borovich. A modified version of this logo is still in use, as a shoulder patch on the team's current jerseys and as the primary logo of their Alternate jerseys I have always heard that the stick laying on the rink turns it into a "C" for Canuck. That makes sense too, since that's what the current Orca logo does, forms into a C for Canuck. So that's where I always drew the correlation for the logo to the team name. But regardless if anyone else thinks it's enough or not, the stink in rink logo is my favorite logo the Nucks have had. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holiday 0 Report post Posted September 8, 2009 Not sure if this was brought up before or not, so disregard if it has. Taken from Wikipedia, so take this for what it's worth... I have always heard that the stick laying on the rink turns it into a "C" for Canuck. So that's where I always drew the correlation for the logo to the team name. But regardless if anyone else thinks it's enough or not, the stink in rink logo is my favorite logo the Nucks have had. Yes, I was aware of that. However it had to be pointed out to me, and the distinction is so small that it is barely noticable as a C. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
